The Government has refused a public inquiry into James Bulger's murder, despite a petition with almost 190,000 signatures.

An investigation has been deemed 'not necessary', much to the fury of James' mum Denise.

But sources close to Denise today told our sister title MirrorOnline that it wasn't just the result that made her 'so angry'.

Her son James was referred to as Jamie in the Government's statement, despite the family's repeated requests that he is referred to as James, not Jamie.

James Bulger, who was murdered in 1993 (Image: PA)

James Bulger's mum Denise was said to be furious by the result (Image: PA)

The decision came despite a petition with almost 190,000 calling for a fresh probe into the tot's case

Two-year-old James Bulger was abducted in Merseyside on February 12, 1993 - and tortured and killed by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.

A petition titled 'We want a Public Inquiry into the James Bulger murder case' explained the belief by some that "there have been a number of issues that have been swept under the carpet" that should be investigated.

It claimed a 'mystery' surrounding the murder was 'why the "experts" insisted that Jon Venables was rehabilitated' and claimed a Prison Service report into an incident at Red Bank secure unit had not been published.

But the Government responded today by saying the offender was convicted of further offences as a direct result of robust and effective monitoring.

Robert Thompson was one of James Bulger's killers (Image: Getty Images)

Jon Venables was also found guilty of murdering James Bulger (Image: Getty Images)

It added: "Therefore the Government considers that a public inquiry into this tragic case is not necessary."

The Government's response in full states: "The murder of Jamie Bulger was an appalling crime which shocked the nation and, 25 years on, continues to be of huge interest and concern.

"Our deepest sympathies remain with Mrs Fergus and Mr Bulger for the pain and suffering they have endured.

"Because this case has been of such understandable concern, when the man formerly known as Jon Venables was recalled to custody in February 2010, the then Justice Secretary asked Sir David Omand, the former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, to conduct an extensive review of the management of Venables from the time of his release from Red Bank Secure Children’s Home in 2001 until his recall to custody.

"In July 2010 Venables was convicted of possessing, downloading and sharing indecent images of children, and Sir David’s detailed report was published in November 2010."

CCTV of James Bulger being led away in a shopping centre (Image: PA)

The report continued to say that the independent Parole Board directed Venables’ re-release on life licence – subject to strict licence conditions in July 2013 after a thorough risk assessment and in accordance with the statutory release test.

This was whether it was necessary on the grounds of public protection for the offender to be detained in custody.

It said: "The Parole Board is legally not allowed to share the reasons behind any of its release decisions, but the Government last month announced an urgent review into how to increase the transparency of Parole-Board decision-making and whether and how it might be possible to challenge those decisions.

"Unlike in 2010, Jon Venables’ recent criminal acts were discovered as a direct result of the tight monitoring to which he was subject by the Police and Probation Services.

Thousands signed the petition

"He has also constantly been subject to stricter licence conditions and more scrutiny than most lifers would be at the same stage of their sentence.

"For that reason, a review of the management of Venables since 2010 would not have the same clear focus."

The statement from the Government insisted that their priority was public safety and that they would continue to keep the monitoring practice under review.

It said: "Venables is now serving a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment for possessing indecent images of children.

"Once he has completed the custodial part of that sentence, he will remain in custody until the independent Parole Board determines that his risk is such that he may be re-released on life licence."